GypsyComet wrote:From the generic "black cover" point of view, each generation of weaponry should eventually evolve to cover combat and sport uses of all sorts, not that there are a lot of sport uses for a fusion gun. Yet.

Hmm, sounds like rocket jumps from Quake 2 have to be tried with an FGMP...

It's interesting to me that there's been lots of talk about the heavier weapons, plasma and fusion, now fair enough, there are changes afoot that require them to be discussed and while it's a topic for another thread, are you really all walking round armed to the teeth with man portable BFGs? For the CSC's many sins, my most favourite part is the permit system.

Matt. In the weapons list most of the AP properties for the standard calibre weapons have been stripped. Does that mean you're losing the SAP rating of the standard rifle round or is the listing a work in progress?

GypsyComet wrote:From the generic "black cover" point of view, each generation of weaponry should eventually evolve to cover combat and sport uses of all sorts, not that there are a lot of sport uses for a fusion gun. Yet.

Hmm, sounds like rocket jumps from Quake 2 have to be tried with an FGMP...

DD indicates that each point of damage penetrates 10 points of personal/vehicle scale armor. Any damage that penetrates armor is multiplied by 10.

example: An ultraheavy suit of combat battledress is hit by a PGMP doing 1DD. One die is rolled with a result of 3. This is compared to the suit's armor of 40. No damage is done.

The same battledress is hit by a more advanced pgmp or fgmp, with a damage value of 2DD. The 2 dice result is a 7. Compared to 40 armor, the remaining 3 damage is multiplied to 30, and applied to the soldier/character inside.

DD indicates that each point of damage penetrates 10 points of personal/vehicle scale armor. Any damage that penetrates armor is multiplied by 10.

example: An ultraheavy suit of combat battledress is hit by a PGMP doing 1DD. One die is rolled with a result of 3. This is compared to the suit's armor of 40. No damage is done.

The same battledress is hit by a more advanced pgmp or fgmp, with a damage value of 2DD. The 2 dice result is a 7. Compared to 40 armor, the remaining 3 damage is multiplied to 30, and applied to the soldier/character inside.

Isn't that just the same in both cases as multiplying the dice roll damage by 10 against personal/vehicle scale armour?

What this means is that it is 50 AP weaker than Matt/mine/acouple of others proposed solution.

Matt?

Option A) DD simply means damage x10

Option B) DD means some baseline AP value (like 50), AND damage x10?

I think option A because I'm really proud of the effort undertaken by Mongoose on battle-dress in supplement 5-6. If we pre-pack 50 AP on all DD weapons, battledress is obsolete and becomes non-sensical (TL 11 battledress weapons one-shotting TL15 ultraheavy battledress).

So Option A, and let's make sure we have good damage values. So that's things are dying too fast or too slow?

Nerhesi wrote:
The entire point of this back and forth, is that DD is being applied to weapons that are on battledress, vehicles and so on. So that a TL 11 tank is not oneshotting a TL 15 tank etc

My stance is NO personal armor should be able to stand up to Destructive weapons. Even if the numbers say they should. But I am a member of the old school that believes that Battledress isn't the Super suits that some seem to thing they should be.

Nerhesi wrote:
The entire point of this back and forth, is that DD is being applied to weapons that are on battledress, vehicles and so on. So that a TL 11 tank is not oneshotting a TL 15 tank etc

My stance is NO personal armor should be able to stand up to Destructive weapons. Even if the numbers say they should. But I am a member of the old school that believes that Battledress isn't the Super suits that some seem to thing they should be.

I agree. But I think that should be handled as force/scope of blast/power/size of gun etc not just as some magic "Armor doesn't apply" rule. Of course, the Hard Science reason is what drives this argument:

Destructive weapons are space-ship weapons (as youve called them).
Destructive weapons do not ignore space-ship armor, which can be as thin as a Centimeter or 2 (based on volume of armor vs size of ship).
Personal/Vehicle armor are using space-ship armor material - no difference.

Conclusion: Destructive weapons should not be any "extra" destructive vs armor of vehicles.

So, to address the issue of "clean" rules for AP, and keep the lethality of what happens should you get hit by giant ship-scale plasma cannon on a vehicle, we can stick to the following:

a) Destructive weapons (D notation after the dice) - multiply their damage by 10.
b) Each 2DD = 1D in ship scale damage. (So basically, a Particle turret equivalent, is a 6DD weapon)
c) Using the above, balance the weapons we have (from anti orbital laser, to advanced PGMPs and FGMPs between the scale of 1DD to 3DD, with maybe some extreme 4,5DD examples).

Info, Hiro, everyone else, here is what we end up with:

1DD weapons will annihilate non-battledress troops and most light vehicles. Even the heaviest battle dress troops will be destroyed 33% of the time from a 1DD weapons.
2DD weapons - kiss your ass goodbye unless you're in an advanced battletank (80+) armor.
3DD weapons - kiss your ass goodbye... unless .. I found one example: Darrian TL15 super advanced tank with maximum armor allowed by the construction rules.
4DD weapons - You're being hit by a pulse laser from a ship.. what is wrong with you!?
5DD/6DD - You dont even want to be in most ships when this hits you.

Basically, this doesn't require a complete revisit of the existing construction rules for vehicles (which were recently redone in supplement 5-6), and it allows for a the conversion scale of 20 personal/vehicle armor to 1 spaceship armor point.

The "structure backing it up" is the hull values we have. Which is why, when a PGMP does enough damage to go past armor, it would vapourize a trooper... or start stripping hull/damaging components/causing crew casualties on a ship or vehicle.

We know this, because 2cm of armor on a 300,000 dton ship, gives you the same protection as 2cm of armor on a 10 ton fighter (it is a fixed percentage based on volume for the same protection). It is also just logically apparent, because armor (on a personal, vehicle or starship) is completely separate form the "structure backing it up" - which is Hull, Structure or Characteristic points.

That book, ok then, There are a whole buncha flaws in it, the Game mechanics are sound, but a lot of the assumptions are way out there. Then there is the factoid of the sample designs don't jive with the numbers in the various aliens books. Just as a not a modern MBT has a rough shipping displacement of 5 to 6 tons or so. Your standard 4 dton Air/Raft is basicly a Deuce and a half that floats. (Hint shipping the classic Jeeps you could average 2 per dTon, though if you want to be able to drive them off you need to ship them at 1 to dTon)

Back to my earlier comment on Battledress and PGMPs and FGMPs, remember at introduction Combat Armor/Battle dress is required to protect the operator, not defend against being targeted by said weapons. By their nature PGMPs and FGMPs are hazardous to be in the general vicinity of while they are in operation, while the larger vehicle mounted weapons have far more operator safety equipment included as part of the mount.

Side note on this thread and the weapons list, there are three or four different sources for said list that need to be reconciled, which unfortunately is one of the classic Traveller pastimes. In that every different publication even nominally within a edition the stas are different or different mechanics are made available (In CT there was the Basic book then the additions from Mercenary, then Snapshot, AHL then Striker ) The long and short of this maybe a master list of equivalences needs to be drafted as a reference to future additions.

Hum..... I'll give you that one from the rules point of view.... (Hint, if anyone wants you to defend this assumption with a real world test, decline, even with rigid armor, Trust me)

Nerhesi wrote:
We know this, because 2cm of armor on a 300,000 dton ship, gives you the same protection as 2cm of armor on a 10 ton fighter (it is a fixed percentage based on volume for the same protection). It is also just logically apparent, because armor (on a personal, vehicle or starship) is completely separate form the "structure backing it up" - which is Hull, Structure or Characteristic points.

Dude I wouldn't invoke Logic here, as that invites the mathematical disapproval of your position. 2 cm of hull on 300,000 dTon ship is a much smaller total percentage of volume that the 2 cm on a dTon smallcraft. As we all know Volume increases with the square while surface increase with the cube. Thus we have no mathematical way to assume a discrete thickness of hull armor isn't backed up by supporting structure. In fact the larger a construct gets, the more of the calculated volume that is "Armor" has to be assumed to be structure. But as I said it is basic Geometry and Logic disproving your stance.

Hey bud, I think you're making the assumption that Logic has to be based on current technology.We would not have scifi, at all, if we based it on what we have today.

Logic, and Hard Scifi, is based on making an assumption that something "magical" is a factual, possible truth. Then you build based on that, what must logically follow.

For example, the magic-assumption is that there exists armor that can stop particle weaponry, nuclear weaponry, plasma guns, and so on. The predicate logic that follows is that, since I my space ship armor is 2cm thick, I can therefore create bullet-proof vest equivalents of this.

That is logic, which is used to make a scifi game "harder".

Logic isn't "this is how armor works today, so therefore this is how it will work in the future". Not at all. Scifi, by definition, is the assumption that things WILL be different in the future. Things can completely and utterly change in the future. Another point of magic that is still logical in Traveler? Jump Drives!

I also think it was obvious that "2cm thick" is an abstraction. Whether we are discussing 2 CC or 2cm is irrelevant. The entire point of the argument is that there exists materials that are as magic to us today, as Induction Charging is to 200 years ago. If I can use these materials in a spaceship, I can use them in anything.

I think the conclusion to this thread should be based on the following:

1) Are we moving Traveller away from hard SCIFI, and more into a near future base system? Because InfoJunky and some other arguments are very firmly (and correctly) grounded in "what we see/know today"? To me, this is a significant departure from Traveller (OTU or otherwise, we're basically moving to an "armor is obsolete model" so perhaps we need to introduce shields or something).

2) The amount of new and old supplements/books that would need significant rework or to be completely redone based on these changes.